Is MOO3 going down the drain?

[Zoid]

Quicksilver seems to have made an astounding number of bad desicions lately, both relating to the actual game and to the staff/volunteers.

Will MOO3 be another CIV3 fiasco?

[player1]

No it won't.

Why?

Because they will try to FINISH the game.

Firaxis was in same situation.

Infogrames said: "If you want delay pay it yourself!"

But they choosed not to spend money, so they cut as much as possibie, and relase one very buggy game. (at least patches helped)

QS choosed another way, lets try to release game in 3 months, we will PAY for that. But there is a probelm 3 months are NOT enough to finish and polish our amibitious design. (we were a little slow and overambitious)
Then lets make it shorther a little.
"You! You don't agree. Then you don't need to work in here anymore.
Lead designer or not."


Conclusion:
MOO3 will be finished game, but won't be tha same game about which we read in data dumps.
It still could be succes.
Regradless of some bad personell (we'll miss you Alan) and game mechnic decisions (not all of game mecnioc decisions are bad if you ask me).

[Zoid]

I hope you´re right. There´s waay to much crap out there already...

[Joe R. Golowka]

Maybe, maybe not. I don't think we can tell yet. I'm taking a wait and see attitude.

[Sarxis]

I think the real crapper is that Infogrames doesn't seem to understand what a big title MoO3 is!

Not every game has such a following. But titles like Doom and Quake and CIV and other big name games have such a huge following (and are larger than life itself), that a little care needs to be taken so the fans aren't put off with rushed and buggy programs.

What don't they get about that?

[Mongoose]

I have a slightly different take than you do, player1.

I agree that the delay is costing QS. I think the layoffs are a desperate effort to fund that delay. Seems to me that if a few months salary of your lead designer is enough to make the cut for, the game is in BIG trouble and bids fair to end up as vaporware.

[player1]

Originally posted by Mongoose
I have a slightly different take than you do, player1.

I agree that the delay is costing QS. I think the layoffs are a desperate effort to fund that delay. Seems to me that if a few months salary of your lead designer is enough to make the cut for, the game is in BIG trouble and bids fair to end up as vaporware.

Yes, Alan is great designer, but I don't think that his layoff will effect MOO3 any more then we have alredy seen (no IFP, different science method, etc...)

And you know what?

Those chages are NOT so bad.

Could be better by keeping science model, but that's only thing I miss.
Maybe if IFP is converted in some sort of HFOG penality.

[BucksRock]

P1 - I think what Mongoose was trying to say is that MOO3 may be so buggered up that QS might not have the resources to finish the game, or at least properly. If QS is strapped for cash, the motivation goes from creating a great game to creating A game - now. The longer it takes, the more money goes down the tubes. Something tells me that the features that will make the final cut will be based much more on length of coding and ease of implementation rather than gameplay value.

[Hywel Dda]

Of course we don't really know, but I have never never never come across a game that has had this much bad publicity at this stage of its production, nor yet this level of high-profile staff changes.

MAYBE the bad publicity is just media hype. MAYBE the staff changes are all just natural design-to-testing-changes-which-always- happen-at-this-stage-in-the-production- cycle-of-a-game as it is claimed.

But at the end of the day, I just follow my gut instincts. Not a reliable system by any measure: but I just feel that MOO3 is losing it. And given the way I now feel, I will not pay my money until at least six months after it is released, and then only if there have been uniformly positive reviews by its players.
At the very least, there has been a serious PR failure here.

[moomin]

Originally posted by player1
Maybe if IFP is converted in some sort of HFOG penality.

Finally, ladies and gentleman, we have a contender who confesses to liking Civ3 city corruption!

[player1]

Originally posted by moominparatrooper
Finally, ladies and gentleman, we have a contender who confesses to liking Civ3 city corruption!

Hmm, you realy DON"T understand HFOG system.

Do you?

If you micormanage too much, less effectiveness.
If you macromanage, then LESS corruption.


If only someting like that could exsist in Civ3.

[mactbone]

It does - the fewer cities you have the less need to micromanage. I still think HFoG is going to be extremely similar to corruption and that many will complain that it has too great an effect (because for some reason everyone likes ordering each individual peon) which may result in many measures lessening the effects of HFoG.

[player1]

Originally posted by MacTBone
It does - the fewer cities you have the less need to micromanage. I still think HFoG is going to be extremely similar to corruption and that many will complain that it has too great an effect (because for some reason everyone likes ordering each individual peon) which may result in many measures lessening the effects of HFoG.

But if you could say (in Civ3):
Governor, build often this, build never that, and GET 50% REDUCED corruption.

That would be great!


P.S.
In Civ3, you get NOTHING for "not orderning every single peon".

[moomin]

Originally posted by player1


> Hmm, you realy DON"T understand HFOG system.

Only too well, grasshopper. I understand how HFOG will turn out very well thankyouverymuch.

The more you conquer, the less you will be able to undo moronic govenor production without incuring humongous corruption all over your empire. This is called incentive. It's allready in place in Civ3, although, admittedly, you don't have the option of ameliorating it by happily accepting the latest addition to your privateer fleet.

And this is what we will get instead of the IFP concept. For shame!

[Killazer]

Why dont these game companies get real publishers/writers like Squaresoft or something I never even heard of Infrograhamcrackers until civ3 came out. These crappy software engineers and little broke publishers are pissing me off cuz they are screwing sequels to games I loved.

[Werwurm]

Squaresoft publishing a PC strategy game.. oh yeah, that would be great, lol. (Dear God, please help me.. )

[Sarxis]

Infogrames also did/does the Independence War series.

BUt before I got I-War, I had never heard of them either. They are a big company though, and I think they are more well known in Europe.

[LordEd]

As much as we bash Civ3, the AI really is worlds better than any I have seen before in a turn based strategy game. Firaxis at least kept its commitment to a great AI. Hopefully, MOO3 will feature some of the same good points (and none of the bad). Optimistically...

[SnowFire]

Heathen! First of all, publish is a different thing from develop, and SquareEA I'm sure has a very compotent publishing network. Second of all, if you meant develop and have creative control and interest, you need to play Final Fantasy Tactics. Not a PC Strat game in the grand sense, but still very good (it's RPG-Strat- same as Front Mission 3, actually). One of the finest games ever produced, I might add.

[Spaced Cowboy]

I voted for the banana box version. I have a coffee table in my living room that I can't put stuff on cuz I only have one banana box to hold up one side of it.

Actually, I'll be real happy if the AI is good; it seems like that is were most designs now-a-days skimp.

R:PM

[Comrade Tribune]

Definitely looks like the answer is yes.

There is an old English proverb: 'Men, not measures.' My optimism concerning Orion III was closely related to the people doing it. With Alan Emrich and Stormhound axed, my confidence is null.

[Garth Vader]

If we assume that the governors will suck then it sounds like the HFOG will actually be better than IFP.

To use the CIV 3 example if I have a choice of having all my cities build privateers and swordsmen because I am out of IFP's to change them each turn, or be able to build what I want with 80% corruption loss. Then I will pick the 80% corruption because at least I will eventually build what I want!

Although I would have still preferred an IFP system with good governors, it would have made MP more interesting.

[loinburger]

To think that I was one of the people who was lobbying for an MOO3 forum.

Never again, I say. Get excited about the game when it's released, and not a moment sooner. Anything else inevitably leads to disappointment, a la the "Civ 3 list of ideas that loinburger put a fair amount of time into and which Firaxis promptly ignored upon receipt of package." Bah.

[Skanky Burns]

Never again, I say.

[Master Marcus]

No doubt they can make a solid AI, as good as Civ III's if not better, but what really interest me about it is how adaptive it can be by today's technology ( and of course the time devoted to develop it before the deadline ) and next to Civ III where the AI toughness on higher levels against the player relies almost only upon productivity cheats ( science, production, military support, growth bonuses ). I sincerely hope for less bonuses in MoO3, but where the AI can make aggressive actions or not against the human player based on diplo integrity, how "noble" you are in peace time and how "clean" you are in war-time, and how strong is your expansion -- not only how fast or how many units you have ( of course there's a minimum needed ).

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by Master Marcus
...AI... as good as Civ III's if not better,

It better be, um, better than Civ3's!

[Skanky Burns]

I agree that it is necessary for the AI to be better than Civ 3's, as your empire is also controlled by the AI to a certain extent.

[Urban Ranger]

When Emrich, one of the founders of QS, got the axe, you can tell the company is up the proverbial shits creek without a paddle.

I was one of the few people who found the grand scheme of QS for MoO 3 questionable, for they seemed to have bitten off more than they can chew.

Say what you want about Firaxis, but both Sid and Braggs are vets of the industry. They decided financial reality is more important for a company than any game design written on paper. Unfortunately, the same can't be said about QS.

Of course, Infogrames seem to be run by a bunch of bean counters who don't know what makes a good game if it hits them in the head. But they have been around for a long time, ever since Alone in the Dark became a hit in the early 90's. IMO, the game sucked.

[markusf]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
When Emrich, one of the founders of QS, got the axe, you can tell the company is up the proverbial shits creek without a paddle.

I was one of the few people who found the grand scheme of QS for MoO 3 questionable, for they seemed to have bitten off more than they can chew.

Say what you want about Firaxis, but both Sid and Braggs are vets of the industry. They decided financial reality is more important for a company than any game design written on paper. Unfortunately, the same can't be said about QS.

Of course, Infogrames seem to be run by a bunch of bean counters who don't know what makes a good game if it hits them in the head. But they have been around for a long time, ever since Alone in the Dark became a hit in the early 90's. IMO, the game sucked.

ya but there is a differnce, firixas is totally incompetent.. Normally the testing phase is supposed to take as long as or longer then the development phase. Firixas released civ 3 with some of the most basic functions not working! Air superiority etc.. Firaxis has released the most buggy software i have ever seen!. QS just needs to get something out the door that is bug free...

[Skanky Burns]

Normally the testing phase is supposed to take as long as or longer then the development phase.

Thats probably the only statement you made that isn't entirely false.